> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 01:08:14PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > An argument against individual i18n files is that if you have an errata > > for OpenOffice.org, the you have to do the QA process and errata _every_ > > single one of the i18n packages too, which is more administrative > > overhead. Just take a look at the update dates on the dictionnary download page. They are *not* synched with oo.o releases. In fact for some of them you could have an unchanged rpm for several FC releases. That screams low maintenance packages to me. And speaking as a lowly end-user, I'd rather search a bit for a spelling package than learn yet another way to update my system (after emacs/xemacs autoupdate, moz plugins, perl cpan, java maven, and so on). Get real people ! Any single specialized update system will always be simpler than a generic one like rpm. The problem with specialized updaters is they pile up quicker than people can master them - even MS realized lately this was no way to make system administration scale. Not to mention they usually lack half the security/hardening features of rpm. I think the Gnome people have demonstrated pretty well people prefer consistency to one-off displays of creativity. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
